| Well, the sentiment of my comment was more in amazement of how broad the official definition of domestic terrorism is (more broad than the colloquial definition as I have used it and seen it used). Any peaceful protest that happens to, for example, temporarily obstruct traffic on a side-street could be characterized as domestic terrorism under that definition. The fire that occurred at the Portland mayor's residence was definitely arson. A splinter group of 200 people broke off from the main protest at around 11:00 at night, trashed the ground floor of a residential high-rise, and some people set some newspapers on fire that was quickly put out. 20 people were arrested in association with this. https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/09/protesters-march... So again, the ground floor of a residential hi-rise was trashed, some people lit some newspapers on fire, nobody was hurt, and the people involved were arrested. I really think that's stretching the definition of terrorism (as it is used in common language, it does most definitely meet the FBI's definition cited in the above comment). Out of the thousands of people who attended the protests, this seems to me like a small subset did something stupid that produced a small amount of property damage. This is not an organized, funded effort to systematically intimidate through the implicit threat of force in the way armed protestors in Michigan have been doing: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52496514 The sentiment of those present is summarized by this Senator's tweet (cited in the BBC article):
"Directly above me, men with rifles yelling at us. Some of my colleagues who own bullet proof vests are wearing them. I have never appreciated our Sergeants-at-Arms more than today." Seems like a pretty clear-cut attempt to intimidate through the implicit threat of violence. Have the Portland protestors attempted anything remotely as organized and intended to intimidate to further a political agenda than the latest Michigan kidnapping plot? https://www.npr.org/2020/10/05/920314527/the-michigan-kidnap... I'm guessing based on your comments that you are also deeply disturbed by armed, organized, and well-funded right-wing militia/terrorist groups running around intimidating Senators with AR-15s and cooking up elaborate schemes to kidnap them. These groups scare me. It's not some random protestors doing something stupid and spur-of-the-moment. It's well thought out, planned, funded, and armed. It's organized with clear goals, and organizational hierarchies. And it has pockets of tacit state support. https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2020/09/01/right-wing-militias-... If the small splinter group of Portland protestors had secured the ground floor of that residential building, and proceeded to go floor-by-floor with assault rifles taking hostages, then ok sure I would 100% agree with you that it is domestic terrorism. But, that's not what happened. Some unarmed idiots lit some newspapers on fire and didn't hurt anybody before they were arrested. There is no evidence of a plan, or organization, or a broader, concerted effort to intimidate through the threat of violence. I am not a political scientist, but it is my impression that a lot of the unrest in Portland was at least in part due to the swarm of federal law enforcement (no identification = no accountability) that were dropped-off and given a blank-check to make the situation worse in the midst of a highly-politicized national debate. Here's the official line from the feds:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-co/pr/real-story-federal-agents... And here's the sort-of opposing perspective from the journos:
https://www.npr.org/2020/08/06/899882025/portland-protests-d... I think it's worth considering what role the federal government played in pouring gasoline on the situation in Portland by throwing their weight around. Maybe I'm wrong! Show me some numbers, show me some wide-angle aerial photography. Show me anything that shows that the majority of protestors in any city in the United Stated during the George Floyd protests were violent. I'm an open-minded person. I have my opinions about the issue, but if you have clear proof from a reputable source that my opinions are wrong, I will definitely consider what you have to say. |
It isn’t.
Show me anything that shows that the majority of protestors in any city in the United Stated during the George Floyd protests were violent
Nobody is claiming that the majority were violent. I’m not sure why that would be relevant.